ALI AKBAR vs THE STATE
The applicant Ali Akbar sought post-arrest bail in Crime No. 09 of 2004 registered at Police Station Rukkan under sections 380, 457/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, concerning a major theft of machinery and spare parts from Dadu Sugar Mills. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail when the FIR was delayed, he was unnominated, no recovery was effected from him, and the only evidence against him was an inadmissible police statement of a co-accused. The Sindh High Court held that the case against the applicant called for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application, granting the applicant release on bail subject to furnishing required security.
- Whether an unnominated accused from whom no recovery has been made is entitled to post-arrest bail when the primary evidence is a co-accused's statement before the police?
- Does the absence of physical recovery and completion of investigation make a criminal case one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a statement of a co-accused recorded before the police admissible evidence to deny bail to an accused?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 14, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' The applicant Ali Akbar has moved this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. For grant of bail in Crime No.09 of 2004, Police Station Rukkan, wherein he along with some other accused, has been charged with the commission of offence .Punishable under sections 380, 457/34, P.P.C. Read with section 14, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. ' According to the prosecution story huge theft of various items of machinery/spare parts had taken place in Dadu Sugar Mills at Piyaro Goth before 10-1-2004 for which written report was submitted by Haji Muhammad Moosa Dasti, General Manager of the Mills on 27-1-2004 which reads as under:-- ' From: General Manager Our Ref: No. DSM. DSM GM/Esti/2404. Dated 10-1-2004 ' The Station House Officer, Police Station Rukkan District Dadu.
3. ' SUBMECT: THEFT OF MILLS MACHINERY/SPAR PARTS VALUING ABOVE RUPEES FIFTY LACS.
4. ' Enclosed please find herewith report of Mills Security Staff which is self-explanatory. Pursuant to the report I along with Mills Security Staff and duty, Police at Mills as well as C.B.A. Office-bearers visited the Mills on 10-1-2004. During our joint inspection it revealed that Turbine Governors (03 Nos.), Electric Panels. Centrifugal Panels were found dismantled and stolen. Furthermore it was also revealed that the locks of Mills main store were found changed by then it seems that the theft has also occurred in Mills main store.
5. ' Approximate losses arising out of this theft incident (Power House Centrifugal) and main store may come to above Rs.50,00,000 (Fifty lacs). The Technical staff required for actual assessm ent/identification of the stolen parts is not available, the detailed report will be forwarded to you very shortly and such F.I.R. Will also be lodged accordingly later on.
6. ' This is for your information and necessary action at your end.
7. (Sd.)
8. ' Haji Muhammad Moosa Dasti General Manager.
9. ' Such report was incorporated in the F.I.R. And investigation was conducted wherein several accused were arrested from whom some of the stolen items/machinery parts were recovered. The applicant was also arrested on 14-3-2004 but no recovery was made from him. On completion of investigation challan was submitted before the trial Court on 24-3-2004.
10. Mr. Qazi Abdul Sattar, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the instant case F.I.R. Is delayed by more than two weeks, applicant is not a nominated accused in the F.I.R., no recovery has been effected from the applicant and after submission of challan he is no more required in the crime for investigation. He further submitted that only evidence available with the prosecution against the applicant is statement of co-accused before police which is inadmissible in evidence and in such circumstances, case of applicant needs further inquiry which entitles him for grant of bail.
11. ' Mr. Anwar H. Ansari, learned counsel for the State frankly conceded that no recovery of any stolen article has been made from the applicant and on completion of investigation he is no more required for the purpose of investigation. He further concealed that at this stage there is no other material available with the prosecution against the present applicant except the statement of co- accused Muhammad Rafique before police from whom recovery has been made along with other accused Gulshan, Wali Muhammad and Nisar Mirani.
12. ' In view of the above discussed facts and circumstances which are borne out from the case record and not disputed by the learned State counsel, case of applicant needs further inquiry within the scope of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. This application is accordingly allowed and the applicant is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Two Lacs) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.